Ron Paul tailors his message of recovery to plight of Nevadans

Republican presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, gestures for the audience to settle down after taking the stage during a campaign event at the Four Seasons Las Vegas on Wednesday, Feb. 1, 2012.

Sun coverage

Nevada’s no stranger to major economic announcements: Presidential candidate Mitt Romney launched his jobs plan here, and President Barack Obama came twice in the past few months to pitch the nation on his plans to correct the housing market and jump-start the national energy industries.

But no national candidate has yet come to Nevada peddling a proposal targeted specifically to Nevada’s woes, which — agree with the specifics or not — is what Ron Paul tried to do Wednesday.

“I’ve been criticized because I sound more like an economics professor than a politician,” Paul began, speaking to a crowd of invited supporters and press at the Four Seasons Hotel in Las Vegas as he formally relaunched the economic plan he put out in October with a Nevada twist. “But if you have an economic problem and you turn it over to a politician, what’s the expectation that politicians are going to solve the problem by being politicians rather than thinking in economic terms?”

Paul’s opening rhetoric is much like his economic plans: dense and long-winded, but ultimately resulting in a digestible flourish that his die-hard fans appreciate with the kind of fervor reserved for punk rockers, not skinny 76-year-old statesmen.

Some of Ron Paul’s plans, packaged though they were for Nevada, weren’t particularly focused on the local economy. The proposal, “To restore Nevada’s job market,” according to the executive summary of his plan, runs the gamut from repealing Sarbanes-Oxley — which set standards for the boards of public companies — to instituting a national right-to-work law (Nevada is already a right-to-work state).

But on other issues, he seemed to be speaking directly to the problems of the local audience.

“This is a city that could benefit rather quickly from one little proposal: Make sure that the United States government does not tax tips at all,” Paul said, adding later that he would not support just raising the minimum wage instead — to thunderous shouts of approval and applause.

The crowd roared just as strongly to Paul’s Vegas-pitch on tourism.

“We’ve overreacted to the visitation privileges of foreigners coming to our country,” he said. “We want people to come to our country , they’re rich, they could be spending their money here in Las Vegas — that’s a good idea.”

Paul later added that he did not support efforts to promote American tourism abroad, even though Congress passed a bipartisan tourism promotion bill last Congress that the entire Nevada delegation supported.

“I don’t think that’s the responsibility of one group of taxpayers to support the other ones. Which ones are you going to support and why would you transfer the money?” Paul said. “I think we need to get out of the way and get the hindrance of these visas and the disapproval that we have with the TSA — people don’t just like to go through it.”

Paul’s son, Rand Paul, was recently detained by the TSA at National Airport in Washington, D.C.; he has since questioned if the machines can be rigged to arbitrarily be set off by people posing no threat.

Paul’s plan delved into more sweeping matters of policy as well.

On housing, Paul promised an extension of the first-time homebuyer tax credit, the introduction of a tax credit for those contending with foreclosure and a “capital loss deduction” for anyone who sells their home for less than they paid for it, and ending all taxes on savings — to make it easier for people to save for a home they can actually afford.

“We have not allowed the liquidation of debt. Instead the debt has been transferred to us, to the people, and under those circumstances, you can’t expect a recovery,” he said. “I say we remove the effort to bail out and give the people a tax benefit if they do work something out — even if it’s a lot of money, give it to them over five years … this would be a boost to the effort to wind this down.”

On federal lands, he advocated a return of property to the states in the context of another passion-fanning parochial issue: Yucca Mountain.

“Forty-nine states decided that Nevada should be a dump for nuclear waste. I strongly oppose that and have always voted against that,” Paul said. “Matter of fact, I’d like to see as much federal land as possible returned to the states, who should be in charge of it.”

(Earlier in the day, Paul went further, musing to a reporter that if federal land were fully privatized, there might be some in Nevada that could host a Yucca-style project.)

There’s a common theme in all of these proposals: Tax credits, good; paying for things, bad.

“We cannot correct this until we admit the truth: We spent too much money, we’re too much in debt, and we ought to cut spending, a lot of it,” Paul said, adding: “Giving people back their own money, that is not a contribution to the debt. The debt is created by spending too much money.”

It’s a recitation almost verbatim of the position congressional Republicans (that is his day job after all) have taken to the issue of deficit reduction — and why they oppose Democrats’ efforts to get the very rich to pay slightly more in taxes to help balance the budget.

Paul ends up tailoring his message of economic salvation to those who make enough money to claim the tax credits he’s proposing. But Paul says the general climate of what he’s proposing will eventually reach the very poor.

“If we truly care about the poor people, we will care about freedom,” he said Tuesday in response to a question.

That may seem a rather political answer for the candidate who claims to be more akin to an economics PhD. But if it feels a little nebulous to those struggling with an underwater mortgage or an employment market that’s too rife with job seekers to find a position, don’t worry — Paul’s got a crowd-pleasing, dismissively professorial answer for that: You need to understand the economy as clearly as he does.

“If we’re going to see a revival of our economy, we have to see a clear understanding of monetary policy, property rights, contract rights, give up this confidence that the government is our salvation, that we believe that they can make sure everybody has a house,” he said. “We have to understand that if we’re true humanitarians and care about the wealth and the prosperity of the middle class, we have to give up on the idea that the government is responsible and can do anything about it. Only freedom can answer those questions.”

Join the Discussion:

Previous Discussion: 5 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

Sadly, if Ron Paul were a foot taller and 10 years younger he'd be leading the race.

Rand Paul has a point, if you look in the hands of the TSA agent that is by the metal detector, they have a remote that triggers it on anyone they want. Which is fine, but don't lie to me and tell me that it 'randomly' picked me. They trigger it.

What Ron and his son need is a time machine to go back to the 19th Century capitalism they espouse, but I don't think they will really like it very much. They are likely to be part of the great unwashed, that is if they manage to survive to adulthood to complain.

If their fore fathers had not come to America they would now be enjoying all that Western European universal healthcare and social safety nets they claim to hate whether they like it or not.

SO, "if WE care about the wealth and prosperity of the middle class...."

First of all, who is WE? Who is he talking to, the unemployed? Hedge Fund managers? Or does the middle class step out of their shoes like Spirit Walkers, as separate entities free from their earthly constraints and decided what to do about themselves? Who is WE, Kimasabe?

NEXT: "we have to give up on the idea that the government is responsible and can do anything about it."

Second, to say that government has no responsibility for the welfare and health of the population is bizarre. Do we fire all the Police and Fire depts? Will counterfeiters be allowed to print their own prosperity? Paul says yes.

Paul does want to eliminate 5 cabinet-level agencies: Education, Interior, Commerce, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development, privatize the Federal Aviation Administration and the TSA. Maybe China can buy a controlling interest in a privatized FAA and Ports Administrations. China would probably pay to get that contract...and then we would all get rich! GOP logic.

I'm surprised Sharron Angle didn't endorse Paul. She wants to turn the country over to 'businesses and churches' too. So Silly.

Ron Paul is the only one serious about getting this country out of the mess that it is currently in. If you want further disintegration of the American spirit and tradition, vote for Mittens or any of the other politicians.

Good Lord People!?! You have no idea what you are talking about! Study a little Austrian Economics and you might actually understand what Ron Paul is talking about. If you truly care about the poor, the economy, civil rights, freedom, the wars, Las Vegas, you would listen to what Ron Paul is talking about and learn a thing or two. He's not racist, he's not a 1%, he's a guy who actually trusts you to make your own decisions and to govern yourselves. Freedom requires individual responsibility, where is yours?

Many things written about Ron Paul are followed by pure ignorance over what constitutional or libertarian positions are.

For example:"Second, to say that government has no responsibility for the welfare and health of the population is bizarre. Do we fire all the Police and Fire depts?"

Only individuals have responsibility. What Ron Paul is saying is that we cannot claim morality over charity by outsourcing what can only be an individual responsibility.

Since the only way government can give to others is to take from others, it will always be an immoral action. The only way for government to perform this action is to steal and back up that stealing with force, or violence. Only voluntary action can be virtuous. There is no virtue in forcing people to be charitable.

"Will counterfeiters be allowed to print their own prosperity? Paul says yes."

This statement is completely ridiculous - Ron Paul views counterfeiting as stealing and has spent his entire political life fighting the powers that legalize theft (inflation).

But one of the most annoying is the ignorance over what a free market truly is.

Libertarians believe that the government has a legitimate duty to protect individual rights - this includes the property of the individual - which further includes the body and choices of the individual - so long as those choices do not infringe upon the rights of others.

Government controls the economy through central banking, regulations and direct control over the money supply. There is no free market.

Ron Pauls crazy though he's the only one out of Obama,Romney, Newt, and Santorum to accurately predict the housing bubble economic crisis, among the among the other correct predictions below. i can't believe the autours of earlier posts ...after all if we would've listened to Ron Paul we wouldn't be in this economic mess the democrats housing bill, Bush's war , and Obama's gift to greedy rich corporations in the form of stimulus got us into. And ot eliminate 5 cabinets which don't produce much...well sounds like a great idea to me, stop nation rebuilding ...just think we could have free healthcare now if the money was used when he ran as a libertaian ..and Obamacare would be a mute subject...i could go on and on about debt and economics ...and since Ron's studied economics for over 20 years we want Obama , Romney, or Newt to lead us? come on folks wake up!

Ron Paul has vowed to take if elected his presidential salary to under 40,000 (the median income) leading by example and help with the economic crisis. RON PAUL has NEVER voted to raise congressional pay.

He has NEVER taken a government-paid junket.

He has NEVER voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted AGAINST the Patriot Act.

He voted AGAINST the Iraq war. He voted For catching Bin Laden.

He DOES NOT participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Ron Paul advocates that we make our Federal government abide by the law of the land--the Constitution of the United States.

If, as some say, the Constitution is an out-dated document and is no longer pertinent to modern government and the social issues we face, shouldn't it be changed? Why allow our Federal government to continue flaunting the Constitution, flagrantly violating our own laws, when we can, by the very process outlined in Article 5 of the Constitution, change those laws to fit these so-call "modern times?"

As it stands the Federal government, on a daily basis, breaks the very laws which each and every individual in that government has sworn to uphold. Their actions demean and devalue the very base rule by which "We the People" have agreed to live--the rule of law.

The Constitution of the United States is the most important document of all the documents pertaining to the government of the United States. It sets forth ALL of the powers that the Federal government and relegates any power not given to the Federal government to the states and to the people. It is, in it's very definition, the fundamental law of the land.

By continuing to allow our government to violate the fundamental laws of the land, we put ourselves and our children in grave danger. Our government should either have to abide by the law of the land or they should propose to change it and abide by the result.